Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bushpilot2; RC one; Cboldt; WhiskeyX
In case you hadn't seen it...
7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTIONb. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever." For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:
...
(5)"Automatic" acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.

c. Questions about acquisition of citizenship through naturalization: (1)Passport Agencies and Centers should contact CA/PPT/S/A/AP at AskPPTAdjudication@state.gov.
(2)Consular Officers abroad should contact CA/OCS/L (Ask-OCS-L@state.gov)

Perhaps the "he didn't go through a naturalization process" argument can be shown for the BS it is.

Cruz is not a natural born citizen and is clearly naturalized.

204 posted on 02/07/2016 12:55:09 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies ]


To: philman_36

Nice. I’m sure they’ll have some excuse about why it doesn’t matter though.


205 posted on 02/07/2016 1:20:05 AM PST by RC one ("...all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens" US v. WKA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36; John Valentine
I'm stunned...  photo image_zps4zjxbkun.jpeg
208 posted on 02/07/2016 2:48:07 AM PST by bushpilot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36; bushpilot2; RC one; Cboldt

See Post 351:

Ted Cruz Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ Board (Illinois) Of Election Finds

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3392018/posts?page=351#351

66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization. NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . . (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”


215 posted on 02/07/2016 5:30:44 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36
-- Perhaps the "he didn't go through a naturalization process" argument can be shown for the BS it is. --

The argument shifts to the difference between "at birth" (in the statute) and "after birth" (in FAM), with the summary conclusion being that nobody made citizen by operation of a statute that recites "at birth" is naturalized. The argument also rings of "They are made NBC pursuant to the founders leaving it to Congress to define NBC."

There is an unlimited supply of people hidebound to their conclusion, and it is literally impossible to shift them. Even a SCOTUS ruling against them, with Cruz as a party, would be met with disagreement.

216 posted on 02/07/2016 5:43:18 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson